Wikipedia has officially added “Gaza genocide” to its “List of Genocides” page, marking a major shift in how Israel’s aggression on the besieged enclave is being documented on the world’s largest online encyclopaedia.
The addition, which now appears as the first entry due to the list’s reverse chronological order, comes after months of extensive debate among the platform’s editors. On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”
The entry for “List of genocides,” Wikipedia states that “Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.” The page goes on to list the death toll in Gaza while mentioning that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed are civilians.
Saying that there were even a debate going on tells a lot about the state of Wikipedia and it’s editorial makeup.
I think what’s incredibility obvious to you and I is an area of willful and encouraged ignorance for some who benefit from the results of their ignorance. I think that the media is largely complicit is beyond distasteful, but it’s also the reality we live in.
I also think it’s important for wikipedia to work through their own NPOV policies. It should be applauded that they eventually arrived at the correct conclusion, AND moreso that they spent time considering and discarding contrary positions.
Accepting one particular viewpoint with no consideration is dogmatism, and is not helpful to progressive causes.
Not really. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate. The fact that it arrived at the right conclusion is a testament to Wikipedia’s editorial policies.
It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate.
I think there’s an important caveat here. Yes, it’s not a democracy, but I don’t think stirring up a fuss is as easy as citing various wiki editing policies and starting arguments. If you invoke them frivolously you aren’t going to succeed at making edits.
Few decades late, but, hey, at least we got there after continuing to deny it would start looking bad.
In the past, the winner would write history. Now it’s Wikipedia editors.
The winners will write wikipedia soon enough.
I found out yesterday that the entire family of one of my good friends has been displaced in Lebanon. They are NOT Hezbollah, they just had the bad luck of “living while Arab in Lebanon”.
Israel can get fucked.
The bright side is that Israel is on track to lose, regardless of US intent.
Didn’t you hear? All Arabs in Lebanon are Hezbollah.
Or they’re sheltering Hezbollah, which is as bad as being Hezbollah.
Or they know someone who is sheltering Hezbollah, which is as bad as sheltering Hezbollah.
Or they live near someone who knows someone who is sheltering Hezbollah, which is as bad as knowing someone who is sheltering Hezbollah.
And so on.
Those editors should probably check their phones for signs of tampering…
I say that only half-jokingly
Even NATOpedia agrees
Is Wikipedia also protected under Article 5?
No, it just tends to have a pro-western bias.
